RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile vs Qualcomm Adreno 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 with RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 1730% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 875 | 106 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.93 | 24.42 |
| Architecture | no data | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 21 March 2023 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | no data | 4608 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 115 Watt (35 - 115 Watt TGP) |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 16000 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1718%
|
200−210
+1718%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1718%
|
200−210
+1718%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1650%
|
700−750
+1650%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−1686%
|
750−800
+1686%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1639%
|
400−450
+1639%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1718%
|
200−210
+1718%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1718%
|
200−210
+1718%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1650%
|
700−750
+1650%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1639%
|
400−450
+1639%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1718%
|
200−210
+1718%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1718%
|
200−210
+1718%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1650%
|
700−750
+1650%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1700%
|
270−280
+1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1479%
|
300−310
+1479%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1665%
|
300−310
+1665%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1700%
|
270−280
+1700%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−1700%
|
180−190
+1700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.17 | 39.71 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 21 March 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 115 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has 1542.9% lower power consumption.
RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1730% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.
Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook graphics card while RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
